The universe often unveils our hypocrisies in ways that are unexpectedly ironic. Among the most divisive issues in the United States over the past fifty years are the debates surrounding vaccines and abortion—two contentious topics where activism has been marked by bitter clashes over what should, arguably, be resolvable conflicts.
At the core of the arguments presented by both anti-vaccine and pro-choice advocates lies a strikingly similar motivation, revealing a shared weakness: selfishness, coupled with a profound lack of empathy and consideration for others. The stances of both of these groups can be distilled into a chillingly simple rationale: “My desire to avoid responsibility or an inconvenience on my life outweighs the value of another’s life.”
That said, it is difficult to take the claims of many pro-life advocates seriously when their commitment to preserving life appears so selectively applied. While they champion the protection of unborn children, they often oppose measures that are equally vital to safeguarding human lives—measures like vaccines, which prevent devastating viruses from claiming millions of lives, including those of children, or reasonable gun control laws designed to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals who might unleash unspeakable violence on both children and adults.
Similarly, the fervor for unrestricted access to guns seems to outweigh any professed commitment to the sanctity of life. It raises the question—how much do they truly value human life if such basic protections are disregarded?
This is why I struggle to trust the sincerity of many pro-life advocates. While I share their desire to protect the unborn, their arguments feel profoundly disingenuous. If the commitment to preserving life were genuine, vaccines and gun control would be non-negotiable priorities, embraced with the same vigor. Yet, the silence—or outright resistance—on these issues suggests otherwise.
The moral ambiguity of an pro-choicer’s arguments and the anti-vaxxer’s unfounded fear of a life-saving drug are, in essence, two sides of the same coin. Their unyielding positions have, tragically, led to the loss of countless lives, a consequence they appear willing to accept so long as their lives are not inconvenienced in any way. Both reflect a deeply rooted self-interest that disregards our unity as a species and the moral importance of empathy for others.
Abortion
The pervasive acceptance of abortion even after the baby has began to develop a human consciousness, reveals a troubling disregard for the value of human life. This perspective often reflects a lack of empathy, compassion, and accountability, prioritizing personal convenience over the inherent worth of another life.
In some cases, arguments have been made to justify abortion stemming from situations as preventable as forgetting to purchase or use contraceptives. Others cite the failure of contraceptives like condoms or birth control pills as a rationale, despite the well-documented and widely understood failure rates of such methods. Engaging in sexual activity inherently carries risks, and a refusal to acknowledge or take responsibility for these risks raises questions about the societal willingness to balance personal autonomy with moral responsibility.
Whether abortion advocates attribute their decision to the failure of contraceptives or assert an unyielding right to terminate a living fetus, the underlying willingness to dismiss responsibility and devalue life reveals inhumanity. This mindset is strikingly comparable to that of those who resisted wearing masks or receiving vaccinations, prioritizing personal convenience over the well-being of others.
Both groups share a common thread: a disregard for the lives affected by their choices, driven primarily by a desire to avoid any inconvenience. Such actions stand in stark violation of fundamental moral and ethical principles, underscoring a profound failure to uphold empathy, responsibility, and the interconnectedness of human life.
It is vital to acknowledge that willfully neglecting measures to prevent unnecessary loss of life is a profound violation of ethical principles. Attempts to equate the termination of pregnancies resulting from consensual yet unprotected encounters with cases involving rape or medical necessity are not only flawed but also misleading. These scenarios reside in a morally complex gray area and demand nuanced, case-by-case consideration, guided by empathy, compassion, and the timeless wisdom of the golden rule. The mother should ask herself, would she have wanted to have been aborted? A sincere question that should put her empathy and humanity to the test. Empathy goes a long way and fewer people can make a bad decision when sincerely operating from an empathetic point of view.
When birth control methods fail, whether due to a broken condom or ineffective pills, it underscores a well-known risk inherent in these contraceptives. Engaging in sex with these options involves acceptance of this risk. Birth control pills have a documented 7% failure rate and condoms have a 1-12% chance of breaking. Considering how well documented these failure rates are, if failure occurs, it is not justifiable to evade responsibility for one’s decisions by taking someone’s life. This is especially true when the reason for the pregnancy was just sexual urges that could not be controlled or resisted. When deciding on whether to actually have the abortion, this is where even a morsel of genuine empathy would come in handy here.
Vocal opponents of abortion often fall short in fostering meaningful compromise by neglecting to champion measures such as easily accessible and free contraceptives and creating smoother, more efficient pathways for adopting children. Expanding access to birth control—while acknowledging its imperfections—could significantly reduce the incidence of unplanned pregnancies. Additionally, implementing a legally mandated advisory that no birth control method is entirely foolproof, and all carry inherent risks, would be a pragmatic and constructive step forward to reducing abortions.
If anti-abortion advocates are truly committed to preserving life, they should also support initiatives providing public financial assistance to women considering abortion due to economic hardship. Redirecting a fraction of public funds, which often finance unnecessary wars, toward programs that empower women to raise their children could make a profound difference. A genuine commitment to the sanctity of life should embrace this type of support, demonstrating that the cause extends beyond rhetoric to tangible compassion and action for those in need.
For those unsettled by the idea of using public funds to support this cause, it is time to weigh your priorities: is the preservation of children’s lives not worth this small societal investment? If your opposition to abortion is rooted in religious conviction, consider this guiding principle: “You cannot serve both God and money.” (Matthew 6:24). This wisdom challenges us to prioritize compassion and the sanctity of life over financial concerns, reminding us that true faith calls for selflessness and a commitment to moral action.
Opponents of abortion must address a valid and pressing criticism: the perception that their concern for life ends at birth, leaving children and families to fend for themselves thereafter. This approach reflects a troubling inconsistency and a failure to embody the empathy and care for one’s neighbor that is central to the faith many of these individuals claim to uphold. By neglecting the well-being of children after birth, this movement reveals a lack of the selflessness and compassion that were fundamental teachings of Jesus, whose message called for unwavering love and care for all.
Despite the profound challenges presented by pregnancies resulting from incest or rape, I maintain that terminating a life in these circumstances remains ethically questionable. The unborn child bears no responsibility for the circumstances of their conception, and ending their life in such cases seems devoid of compassion and driven by self-interest. Multiple options should be given to the pregnant person in order to discourage them from choosing that path.
Ultimately, prioritizing the “freedom to choose” over the inherent value of human life—particularly when it has led to countless terminated lives—perpetuates a troubling pattern. It reflects a failure to learn from the consequences of past choices, enabling a cycle where irresponsible decisions are made without accountability or reflection on their profound impact.
When discussing abortion rights, there is a notable lack of a unified effort from both sides of the debate to educate the public on the inherent risks associated with sexual activity, even when so-called “safe sex” measures are employed. A national campaign aimed at raising awareness of these risks and fostering a culture of accountability for personal decisions would be invaluable. Such an initiative could emphasize the profound responsibility of parenthood that may arise as a natural consequence of one’s actions.
Culturally, this approach could instill a sense of maturity and foresight in younger generations, encouraging them to make more responsible choices—even in the face of heightened impulses, such as those experienced during adolescence. Normalizing a mindset that prioritizes accountability over the convenience of escape from poor decisions would be a transformative step. Just as society values responsibility and consequence in other areas of law and culture, this principle should hold true when addressing the deeply complex issue of abortion.
At the heart of these debates lies the delicate balance between individual freedoms and the ethical responsibility to protect life and prevent harm. The discussions surrounding abortion, vaccines, and gun rights underscore the moral imperative to critically examine the choices of those who prioritize personal liberty, even when such choices may come at the expense of others’ lives or well-being.
Pandemic Reactionaries – Masks & Vaccines
A stark example of inhumane selfishness demonstrated during the pandemic was the widespread resistance to wearing masks—a simple, effective measure designed to mitigate the spread of a deadly global virus. Many refused this minor inconvenience, prioritizing their personal comfort over the health and safety of those around them. This refusal revealed a troubling indifference to the consequences for others, from severe illness to death on an international scale.
Such resistance exemplified a profound lack of compassion and an unwillingness to bear even the slightest “cost” for the collective good.
Even among those who refused the vaccine due to fears of exceedingly rare adverse effects, their decision still ultimately reflected a prioritization of themselves over the welfare of humanity as a whole. When contrasted with the staggering loss of over 5 million lives to COVID-19, the negligible proportion of individuals experiencing minor side effects from the vax underscores the selfishness of their position. It was a failure not just of action but of empathy, at a time when unity and consideration were most needed.
Those who refused vaccination due to perceived health risks not only heightened their own vulnerability but also endangered countless others, perpetuating the spread of COVID-19 and the needless loss of life. Their refusal was rooted in an exaggerated fear of personal risk, coupled with an unsettling indifference to the broader consequences for society. For many, this defiance seemed less about genuine concern for health and more a reactionary rebellion against authority—a juvenile assertion of autonomy over collective responsibility.
The irony is profound: many who clung to a “pro-life” ideology showed a glaring inconsistency in their principles, willingly neglecting a simple, effective means to prevent unnecessary death. Their actions revealed a troubling disregard for the well-being of others, undermining the very values they professed to uphold.
Gun Activists
Likewise, proponents of unrestrained access to firearms and advocates of unrestricted abortion rights both champion their freedoms with fervor, often at the expense of innocent lives. Gun advocates fiercely defend their right to easy firearm access, seemingly indifferent to the devastating toll of preventable deaths, as long as their rights remain unchallenged—an unsettling display of self-interest over empathy. Similarly, proponents of unrestricted abortion rights prioritize “freedom!” even when it comes at the cost of human life.
In this light, gun enthusiasts, pro-choice advocates, and anti-vaxxers share more common ground than they might care to admit. All three prioritize personal liberty above collective responsibility, exemplifying a troubling pattern of self-centeredness that dismisses the profound impact their choices have on others.
In the realm of gun rights, staunch gun rights activists often resist even modest measures aimed at preventing mentally unstable individuals from accessing firearms—a reasonable precaution to protect public safety. This is an absolute display that someone has abandoned all empathy in their life. When something personally impact them, namely just a hobby they enjoy causes them to reject any measures intended help prevent additional unnecessary deaths.
Closing Notes
I’ve often found it intriguing how the arguments in the abortion debate align with broader ideological narratives. I’ve always thought pro-choice came off more like a libertarian position (“government doesn’t tell me what to do!”) and pro-life feels always felt more like a position that would be embraced by the progressive new age lover of earth and life. Personally, I approach these issues from a humanitarian standpoint, where the preservation and nurturing of life take precedence in every context—be it through gun control laws, vaccine mandates, abortion policies, or universal public healthcare. In short, I believe human life should be protected and preserved, whether it’s through gun control laws, public healthcare access, and a pro-life position which is lined up with my desire to save human lives as much as possible.
On the topic of public healthcare, it is a facet of our nation’s responsibilities that should be wholeheartedly embraced by all who identify as Christians, as it aligns seamlessly with Christ’s teachings to care for the sick and uplift the less fortunate in our society. It is puzzling, and perhaps even disheartening, that such a vital priority has not been more fervently championed by self professed Christians, particularly given its profound moral and ethical resonance with the principles of compassion and service. Excessive jingoism and unhealthy levels of patriotism often blind us to the successes of healthcare and social systems abroad—systems that far surpass ours when ranked on an international index measuring the quality of healthcare provided to citizens. This overinflated sense of national pride perpetuates a dangerous denial of our shortcomings, fostering a refusal to acknowledge that other nations may, in fact, be light-years ahead in addressing the needs of their people.
For those who identify as Christians, the empathetic and selfless positions discussed here throughout this article align closely with the teachings of Jesus, who championed compassion, selflessness, and caring for all. To neglect such principles risks straying from the essence of the faith. The golden rule—treating others as we wish to be treated—remains a timeless and profound guide for navigating these complex moral landscapes. The golden rule should have steered many Christians how to ethically interact and navigate culture during the pandemic where people’s lives were almost always put at risk.
Many Blessings Your Way! Join my mailing list if you want occasional updates.
I do not spam email boxes and will not try to sell you anything!
Leave a Reply